(This one also has some offensive language and content, so don’t read it if you’re a pussy. Or if you’re easily offended. Oh, sorry: Too late, huh?)
Okay, here’s another silly Summer’s Eve ad raving about vaginas. Want to see it? You do? Really? It’s two and a half minutes long! Still want to see it? Really? Okay, here it is (But I tried to warn you…):
So there’s a puppet cat practicing for its UN address about vaginas. And this is obviously the ad people’s way of referring to pussy without saying “pussy” by having a pussy-cat, raving about pussy. (There are other plays on words in the dialog that will call to mind other purple prose allusions to female anatomy as well.) That’s the only rationale for having a cat anyway, unless they’re promoting bestiality, which I doubt. But it’s funny that he’d be offended by the fact that it’s called pussy; seeing as how he loves it so much, you’d think he’d be tickled pink by the association. (Oh, did I say “pink”? Sorry.) But whatever. That’s not even the dumb part.
The ill-considered part of this ad is its eventual message, which is that when we see something we think is great, we should say that “That’s vaginal”. Um, I hate to be the one to bring this up, but there’s an expression for when things are bad, and that’s to say: “It stinks”. And douches are specifically for when something else they’re talking about here stinks. So, um, doesn’t that beg the counter claim that perhaps the term “That’s vaginal” would be more in line with the expression “It stinks”, and if you want to avoid that association, you should use Summer’s Eve douches? Or perhaps they could make the argument that Summer’s Eve could allow the term “That’s vaginal” to mean astounding or wonderful, rather than having it automatically understood to mean, or joked about it meaning: “It stinks”.
But they don’t mention that issue; and in fact, if vaginas are so perfect and wonderful, what does anyone need Summer’s Eve products for anyway? And aren’t they trying to sell a product here? Because I feel like I’m missing the sales pitch for their product. It looks rather more to me like they’re in prostitution when I see this ad, with a “pussy-cat” acting like a carnival barker (meower?) trying to drum-up interest in vaginas. And so where does Summer’s Eve come into this equation, exactly? Are they trying to be the cherry on top of this vaginal sundae? Or are they simply skirting the issue that as every rose has its thorn, so too does the vagina; so that’s why there’s Summer’s Eve. (And when you use Summer’s Eve, a rose by another name can smell as sweet.) That’s the part they seem to be missing here, not to put too fine a point on it. For without that part of the pitch, what need would anyone see for their products? And I’m pretty sure that there’s enough enthusiasm about vaginas already without this silly commercial. I’m just saying…
The other ad for Summer’s Eve I criticized, the “Hail to the V” one, has plenty of good ideas and execution in it. I think it could use a little tweaking, but I like it in general. This one, not so much. It’s dumb, and even the cat puppet sucks. But if they’re trying to get people to talk about it, well, mission accomplished.
But now that I think about it, there has been, for as long as I can remember, the complaint from women’s groups that there is a really big double-standard in movies, etc., about nudity, where lots and lots of female nudity is used, but usually not so much with male nudity. But the cat in this ad is clearly calling for more and more graphic female nudity, and on television (!) too. So basically, in an ad purporting to be for empowering women, they’re positively propagandizing the exploitation of women as sex objects in entertainment. Is this really the direction they want to take with this, encouraging the further sexual objectification of women, and in a commercial for feminine hygiene products? Admittedly this isn’t the way they mean it, but the result is the same. No matter how you slice it, this ad calls for further sexual exploitation of women in film and on TV, furthering the objectification of women for sexual purposes. And I’d think that would make what really ought to be an intimate and trustworthy product seem somewhat threatening and exploitative. But who knows: Maybe I’m the only one who sees it that way.
AdRants critiques this ad as well, and their post is here:
In it, they write that the ad tells us “…why we should appreciate life's major accomplishments as "vaginal" because without the vagina there would have been no one around to create these wonders of life.” This idea of nobody being around to appreciate the wonders of life without the vagina is a good one, but it’s not in the ad. I almost hate to mention it, but it seems unfair to me to add stuff to an ad that isn’t there, and then compliment the ad for its inclusion. What they might have said was that including that idea may have made it a better ad. And it would have.
